Glad to be in that 20% then as far as that philosophy goes, wish I could say the same for you, brah, lol — IvoryBlackBishop

Well, no.

Many of these guys only stay alpha for the time that it lasts. At some point, they will just have to revert to what other men have to do, i.e. to rely on the fact that they make good money. However, they have often never invested in developing the skills to do that. So, their stories usually do not have a happy end.

It is a bit like the high-school bullies. They do well in high school, but tend to fail miserably later in life. Again, they invested in developing the wrong skills.

Furthermore, on the opposite side, most non-attached non-virgins have their very cheap moments. Just look at what they are willing to do when they run out of cash. Preferably don't film it, because that movie will not be safe for children to watch. For a little bit more cash, they will even fake their satisfaction, if that is your thing. According to the red-pill philosophy, they can no longer pair-bond. So, they mostly fake it anyway. Nothing new there.

If you cannot see through the aforementioned individuals, then yeah, then you cannot get what you want, whatever that may be.

As I have mentioned earlier, you will get much better results in every sense with someone who has a history of chastity. As I have said before, accumulating trysts with fake individuals is simply low-value behaviour.

You're so self-contradictory it's difficult to reply to,

You talk about "uncivilized" men taking whatever woman they want, then no you're saying a man seeking "trysts" is stupid, and that he would be better off going "blue pill" or whatever it's called, and being an effiminate, married, beta male, or whatnot?

Which is it?

You're so self-contradictory it's difficult to reply to — IvoryBlackBishop

No, that is not how to point out a contradiction.
Try again.

Case 1. A keeper. You will end up giving her money for household expenses. In the local culture here, you even start by paying for a substantial bride gift.

And? So yes, in reality that's closer to a "traditional" thing, and less of anything remotely relevant to your allegations of "schools feminizing people" or whatever.

Case 2. A seemingly "free" tension-relief service provider. Watch out for Weinstein-style cases. You could end up at the receiving end of a "regret" rape accusation or other back stabbing. That could go badly wrong. There really seems to be a trend to put more and more alpha players in jail. (#metoo).

What's your fucking point? Anytime you engage in some kind of relationship or interaction with another person, especially some potentially maladjusted person who you barely no, there is always a "risk" in ivolved, I suppose.

And no, an ugly old man who has to show his penis to younger women isn't an "alpha", he's lonely, desperate SOB, I'ver been desperate enough to have to do that, same with a "millionaire" or supposedly "powerful" individual who is worthless, defective, and degenerate enough to waste their time molesting underage children.

You're assuming that all "rape" allegations are false simply because a woman made them (which is stupid nonsense, akin to Valerie Solanas assuming that any rape allegation is true simply because a woman made it), as far as that goes, I'll let the thinking men and women in courts of law and the procedures decide, not anti-intellectual worthless, mentally, socially and otherwise inept idiots or archaic dionsaurs on social media, who probably couldn't name a single letter of their own state or feral law to begin with speculate on that till their anime-masturbating heart is content.

Everything you say is contradictory:

East Asia is a better culture; oh but Asian men are not known for their 'virile masculinity"., as just one example.

Everything you say is contradictory — IvoryBlackBishop

No, no. You need to learn how to quote literally.

You cannot claim "you say" while not quoting what I have said. That is just a liberal-arts fraud. That may be how they taught you how to lie and manipulate, but I do not respond to that.

I don't think you know what "liberal arts" is, for one. I'm merely summarizing them.

Such as you talking about "statism", but being unable to define it; as far as I'm aware of, even in ancient times, whether you want to reference "Rome" or a "religious' system of government such Israel, the notion of extending the "nation, kingdom, and so on and so forth" beyond the individual, atomized "families" or "tribes" was not a recent invention at all, nor something exclusive to "secularism".

(For that matter, there is no inherent difference between "religious" or contemporary "secular" law in the sense of it being a system or institution, with "secular" systems like Common Law having evolved out of and incorporated concepts from "religious" law - in the sense that modern law imposes at least a bare minimum of morality on people by force, such as prohibiting evils such as rape, and murder it isn't any different in that way than "religious" law is; sure, ideally a person of genuine morality would be above and beyond simply "not raping or murdering" solely out of fear of the law, but regardless, that's what the institution is and does.

You also use Mafiosi who rape and "dominate" women by force and aggression as some kind of role model to champion for their supposed virility, but then talk about strict, Islamic schooling in which boys are sexually repressed and encouraged not even to look at the opposite sex, seems the polar opposite of that antisocial from of virility which you previously champion.

Oh, and I've heard of Rollo Tomoassi (which is actual the name of some obscure film character) and he's just a salesmen who isn't even doing any of the stuff he writes about, he admits himself he's "married". I no longer trust people hocking things which are to some extent just "common sense" under overly fancy or trendy names and false dichotomies (like "red pill" blue pill")- no matter what "time period" is selected or overly romanticized (such as the nonsense of "every man" having been some "warrior archetype" no matter the time period, ancient, medieval, or modern, when they are and have always been a small, and very elite section of the population, which most men having comparably more "ordinary" jobs or careers; in the worst cases, painting such a flawed and romanticized picture is almost a bit delusional and dangerous, a product of mindless media voyeurism and dumb people, such as idiots who think sports is solely about the fighting, or purely visual, sensory aspects of it, when in reality it's akin to a performance "art", with most of it being the 'internal' factors, the strategies or states' of the athletes' minds and so on and so forth.

Or as authors such as Rory Miller have written in books like "Meditations on Violence", most of the nonsense which equally dumb people and empty headed-voyeurs fantasize about, such as "combat" or use of weapons is fantasy which comes more from Michael Bay movies than "real life" combat, which he claims is ugly, quick, and brutal, with stylized combat in the mass media being more akin to a sport or theatre performance than an actual "fight", "war" or anything of that sort in theory, or in practice.

Women who support each other through an experience of abuse, and even those who strive to minimise occasions of sexual harassment are not necessarily plotting your demise, and don’t specifically mean to exclude you. — Possibility

They want all men to perish. Not all of these women, but most of them. Their hate is what I hate. They are violent in their writings, they just want to see blood.

You never encountered such rabid feminists? I would be surprized to hear you haven't.

Such as you talking about "statism", but being unable to define it — IvoryBlackBishop

It is a trivially simple definition. Statism is the practice of government increasingly taking over tasks that originally belonged to non-government. Simple, no?

the notion of extending the "nation, kingdom, and so on and so forth" beyond the individual, atomized "families" or "tribes" was not a recent invention at all, nor something exclusive to "secularism". — IvoryBlackBishop

Was education a government task back then? Healthcare? Dealing with marriage and divorce? I don't think so.

You also use Mafiosi who rape and "dominate" women by force and aggression as some kind of role model to champion for their supposed virility — IvoryBlackBishop

You are again trying to use some liberal-arts lying and manipulating. If I have said something, you should be able to quote it literally. Otherwise, you are just inventing that. Your strategy of lying and manipulating does not work in a written medium, because it is too easy to go back end double check. In my opinion, you are a born liar.

Oh, and I've heard of Rollo Tomoassi (which is actual the name of some obscure film character) and he's just a salesmen who isn't even doing any of the stuff he writes about, he admits himself he's "married". — IvoryBlackBishop

In what sense does that even matter? His writings seem to be influential in the "manosphere". He has a good pen. I am not going to criticize him for no reason at all. You are also a born black-mouther and bad-mouther.

All you have demonstrated up till now are truths about yourself: The fact that you routinely lie, manipulate, black-mouth, and that you are fundamentally dishonest, confrontational, and insincere.

Was education a government task back then? Healthcare? Dealing with marriage and divorce? I don't think so.

Yes, it most certainly was, have you read the Old Testament, for example? Such the government regulating marriage and punishments for adultery, and whatnot?

You are again trying to use some liberal-arts lying and manipulating. If I have said something, you should be able to quote it literally.

What you're calling "liberal arts" is nonsense, I'm not quoting you literally, I'm merely paraphrasing.

According to you, the Peruvian Mafia is going to "lead the one man wolfpack" or whatever; and you use their antisocial behaviors such as raping women as evidence of their "machismo".

In what sense does that even matter? His writings seem to be influential in the "manosphere". He has a good pen. I am not going to criticize him for no reason at all. You are also a born black-mouther and bad-mouther.

Who cares, anyone who can write can potentially gain a following, he admitted himself he was married.

All you have demonstrated up till now are truths about yourself: The fact that you routinely lie, manipulate, black-mouth, and that you are fundamentally dishonest, confrontational, and insincere.

Nonsense, you're defensive simply because your inconsistences and absurdities have been called out.

Who cares what some dime a dozen freak or fringe figure like Valerie Solanas thinks? I don't believe that the majority of women are that misanthropic or otherwise maladjusted, so please tell me why "they" are relevant enough to even acknowledge to begin with?

I have the same opinion about those idiotic and irrelevant "MGTOW" and"SJWS" manbabies, and other assorted social media oddities.

Who cares — IvoryBlackBishop

I care.

Why?

I never payed for it, and if any of the women I was with didn't fully enjoy my company, that's on them. — IvoryBlackBishop

I am positive you paid for it in some way, by time, effort, maybe false promises, whatever, I this case, alcantali is right. Sex is never free. The idea that male and female sexuality is the same is ludicrious.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'orienting' it to girls, some have made the opposite claim, that it's oriented to boys due to an emphasis on "math", so I take these claims with a grain of salt. — IvoryBlackBishop

LOL, now you are claiming that girls are innately inferior in match. While claiming there is no gender difference. Paragon of consistency, are we?

LOL, now you are claiming that girls are innately inferior in match.
[/quote]
It's spelled "math".

And no, a female chessmaster would be superior at it to an "average" man who is not a chessmaster, regardless of whether there tend to be "innate" differences, such as the positive correlation in medical studies between testosterone and higher-level mathematical and spatial reasoning abilities.



So again, in practice, at least as far as "arbitrary" claims against women or others on the bases of averages or approximations alone, which don't actually apply on an individual or meritious bases is rather fallacious, and ultimately, more often then not seems to boil down to attempting to win a silly "argument", rather than use such information, averaging's, or data in anything akin to a meaningful way.

And no, a female chessmaster would be superior at it to an "average" man who is not a chessmaster, regardless of whether there tend to be "innate" differences, such as the positive correlation in medical studies between testosterone and higher-level mathematical and spatial reasoning abilities. — IvoryBlackBishop

Reading comprehension problems_? Your claim that education favours boys if it stresses math IMPLIES that you think girls are inferior in math. That is all I referred to,
In the event when I said education is increasingly changed to favour girls, I was not referring to math.

Try to READ before commenting.

Reading comprehension problems_? Your claim that education favours boys if it stresses math IMPLIES that you think girls are inferior in math. That is all I referred to,
In the event when I said education is increasingly changed to favour girls, I was not referring to math.

No, I don't believe that, in practice, girls are all necessarily "inferior" in math, regardless of the positive correlations between testosterone and mathematical ability.

Nor did I claim the "education system" favors boys, just that I've heard people make assertions in both eras, such as It treating boys like 'defective girls', or girls like 'defective' boys, or whatnot, which is why I no longer buy into any to these blanket claims or assertions with anything more than a grain of salt.

Unles someone can provide something akin to the usage or meaning of these 'averages' and the archaic methods and approximations upon or by which said averages are actually used to begin with, in anything akin to a practical contest, I'm not too concerned about having childish "debates" about them, if the primary aim is simply to sell some intellectually vapid propaganda or win an argument which has no practical relevance or application in "real life" beyond solely the "winning" of the silly argument and all of the nonsensical implications of the argument to begin with.

An example might be "Cathy Whatshername" making a silly argument rife with logical fallacies, by and for those of a 100 IQ at most, or 6th grade reading level, based on some silly little archaic 19th century reductionist methodology used in similar ways in favor of archaisms such as "scientific racism", and other silliness, such as likely not even knowing the bare basics of how a knife or weapon would ever be used in actual violent conflict, as opposed to cheesy action movies which are more theatrics or performance than anything else.

Which even during the outdated day any age in which such silly little methodologies and the various non-sequiturs, inconsistencies, and logical fallacies they are or were predicated on to begin with, was more or less known to be outdated as far as any serious legal or moral philosophical discussion is or was concerned, such as in the Common Law system, and the legal and moral philosophy which it is founded on or predicated on to begin with, rendering her nonsense obsolete and more or less irrelevant to anyone above a 6th grade reading level or 100 IQ, much as most if not all of the sensationalist, voyeuristic nonsense is based on similar fallacies and appealing to outdated, fears, sentiments, superstitious, immaturities, arrested development, and other maladies, my honest belief is that simply reading higher-level books based on some merit or cultural validity which has stood something akin to the test of time would render the majority of this ADHD, lost intellectual, moral, and economic common denominator stuff irrelevant and obsolete.

Again, who are these "people", in most cases what you're referring to has nothing to do with anything specifically called "feminism", but rather just lowest common denominator human behaviors and nature, have existed and been documented in some form or another, long before there was anything specifically called "feminism".

Much as a lot of the gripes about the court system, such as "divorce rape" or whatever they call it, Ironically has more to do with "traditional" ism or legal holdovers from archaic 19th century systems, and so on and so forth, such as presuming by default that the man "makes more money" or isn't as fit to nurture the child, hence the alleged alimony biases which people are discussing.

Just how, for example, the whole dichotomic notion of creating subcultures out of "red pill / blue pill" BS, is rather absurd to begin with, given that "marital problems" have been documented phenomena, no matter the time period or source since men and women have been getting married, to blindly assume that a marriage would work out by itself with "no problems", or that there isn't and has always been a pragmatic aspect to the marriage and or longevity thereof, or that there is anything necessarily automatically desirable about "getting married" as opposed to not, let alone as soon as possible without any personal investment in maturity in a contemporary 1st world country in which men and women's life goals and plans extend above and beyond overly "childish" or "hillbillyish" notions of the thing (such as the fact that in a civilized, 1st world country, no man or woman can be "forced" to get married nor have children, if they otherwise decide not to, the notion of not marrying or having children not solely being a contemporary thing, but rather an ubiquitious, commonsensical thing, whether one references people like Adam Smith, Newton, or the apostle Paul, who didn't marry and/or even recommended that, at least some people, should possibly not get married, and not only solely out of a nihilistic or cynical worldview, based on fatuity or animosity toward sex, or the opposite sex, childish and nonsensical financial or time planning and accounting notions, or other similarly childish and apathetic notions.

As far as a legal institution, "sacredness" being something in the context of couples, churches or other things entirely - is incredibly naïve, pop Rousseauian determinism. so if anything I would lay blame to that on persona apathy, denialism, a lack of self investment in the relationship or marriage and making it better instead of worse - likely just another notch on the 50% divorce rate statistics when all is said and done, without laying sole blame to one or the other partner - to begin with rather than anything unoriginal enough to merit these ridiculous cultural fads and identities.

Why do I care?

Because.

(This is great philosophy, innit. Let's stop this now. You can still have the last word, I won't reply to that in this mini-thread.)

Testosterone made me a mathematical prodigy, I'd venture.

I fail to understand your point, or why you're posting here but now wanting to "end" the discussion.

As far as "radical, man-hating feminists" like Valerie Solanas or Andrea Dworkin, they're a fringe and irrelevant minority, not to mention misanthropy or "sexual resentment" is as old as human nature, long before there was anything called "feminism", I've heard that even Plato wrote about it, as have many ancient texts.

Regardless, I do believe that plenty of people do not take a "nihilistic" extreme, either complete loathing of the other sex as a whole, or a belief that no one should marry, reproduce, and so on and so on.

Perhaps in the case of someone, for example who was severely sexually absued as a child, I'd be much more sympathetic, but in the case of a Minecraft addict going "incel" because Taylor Swift won't respond to his PM messages on Facebook, I'm not quite as sympathetic, no.

For that matter, there "are" people, men and women, unusual or not, who have never married pr possibly been celebrate their whole life, and didn't not manifest such a thing in the psychosis and depravity that we see associated with the John Hinkley Jr. wannabes known as "Incels", or whatnot.

Realistically, I do not even believe that the "sex", really is the primary thing to begin with (given that an incel's dick doesn't even know the difference between his 'right hand' and an actual vagina, the body is apparently thing of fairly simple pleasures).

In comparison, I believe it's much of a pride, ego, or vanity thing, which goes beyond "sex" and manfests itself in mental or psychological disturbances, this is why I haven't seen many "incels" spending their time looking for a chubby, Minecraft addicted girlfriend who might actually have sex with them, but rather seem obsessed with hitting on the top 10% of the world's hottest chicks.

No, I don't believe that, in practice, girls are all necessarily "inferior" in math, regardless of the positive correlations between testosterone and mathematical ability. — IvoryBlackBishop

But you SAID it. That was your argument, remember? Jeeze....

I fail to understand your point, or why you're posting here but now wanting to "end" the discussion. — IvoryBlackBishop

I don't want to end the discussion. I just wanted to end this branch:
"Who cares?"
"I care."
"Why?"
"Because."

I am all for supporting more debate in the OTHER areas of discussion.

Reading comprehension problems_? Your claim that education favours boys if it stresses math IMPLIES that you think girls are inferior in math. That is all I referred to,
In the event when I said education is increasingly changed to favour girls, I was not referring to math. — Nobeernolife

You were referring, I reckon, to geography and English history?

Are there any other subjects in school? It's been a long time for me, and I can't remember.

You were referring, I reckon, to geography and English history?
Are there any other subjects in school? It's been a long time for me, and I can't remember. — god must be atheist

I was referring to the teaching style and rules, not to a particular subject.
YOU claimed that women are inherently inferior in math, while at the same time insisting that all is equal. Your contradiction, not mine. Live with it, and don´t try to change the subject.

They want all men to perish. Not all of these women, but most of them. Their hate is what I hate. They are violent in their writings, they just want to see blood.

You never encountered such rabid feminists? I would be surprized to hear you haven't. — god must be atheist

It is this assumption that I disagree with. They do not want all men to perish - that’s just your interpretation of their writings. I acknowledge that the majority of mainstream feminist writing portrays masculine culture as a harmful force in itself (which I don’t agree with, by the way), but that’s not the same thing as what you’re talking about at all.

You’re describing violent hatred towards an opportunity for women to experience cathartic healing from abuse and violence, because you recognise but refuse to acknowledge that behaviour supported and encouraged by masculine culture contributes to this. In my view, domestic abuse and violence requires both men and women to acknowledge their cultural contribution and collaborate to effect change. But whenever men assume the defensive position, angry feminists will fill the attack role.

Just as whenever women portray themselves as a ‘damsel in distress’, violent men will fill the role of defender and master. Behaviour supported and encouraged by female culture contributes to domestic abuse and violence, too - but men are not the ones at risk of perishing here, so don’t be so defensive. It’s not going to harm you to hear a verbal attack on masculine culture, and acknowledge the truth behind it.

Men and women are NOT opposites in fixed roles - this is the conceptual structure that causes the most damage. We are not two halves of one whole, or two ends of a spectrum. Gender is part of the diversity of humanity. Just as ‘race’ is no longer portrayed as a single value based on skin or eye colour, facial features, body shape, etc, so, too, ‘gender’ is not a binary based on genitalia or other bodily features, incorporating levels of spatial or mathematical ability, interoception, physical capacity or sexual appetite, to name but a few.

If you genuinely feel threatened by women supporting each other against the actions of some men, ask yourself why. Given that you would undoubtedly support and defend victims of violence if you could distance your own identity from the perpetrators, what is it about this situation that distresses you? Are you ashamed to be associated with men who prey on women and trap them in cycles of abuse and violence? Does it bother you that you struggle to distance yourself from them culturally?

I don’t refer to myself as a ‘feminist’ because I don’t support the current of hatred against men and masculine culture in general that appears to motivate feminist activism. But I will call you on your violent hatred against support for women recovering from violent and abusive behaviour, simply because you cannot dissociate your identity from the offenders. I am not plotting against you or against masculine culture, but against the violent and abusive behaviour it supports, encourages and defends. I will do the same to women who assume the ‘victim’ position simply because they’re female.

We need to be mindful of ignorant assumptions, and recognise that how we conceptualise masculinity can change without men perishing.

If you genuinely feel threatened by women supporting each other against the actions of some men, ask yourself why. — Possibility

I think that, in the West, men increasingly distrust women and do not believe a word they say. Men have learned to safely assume that everything she says, is a manipulative lie. Even if it is occasionally not a lie, it is better to convince yourself that it is one. Better safe than sorry. In the physical space, for reasons of security, interact only with other men. Furthermore, whatever romantic ideas you thought you would act upon, go and do that in another jurisdiction. It costs usually less than $100 to fly out of the sexual danger zone of the West to the nearest-by free country.

Well, you’re not living in the West by my understanding - your perception of it is serving to justify your rejection of it, so I’ll take that with a pinch of salt, if you don’t mind.

And you’re not addressing the supposed threat of women supporting each other against the violent and abusive actions of some men. You’re only expressing a general fear and misunderstanding of women - in the same way that women have expressed a general fear and misunderstanding of men for centuries.

It’s a debilitating situation to suffer from predation and the dishonesty of a potential partner’s words. To feel that you are only ‘safe’ in the company of your own sex. This is what women have been experiencing for centuries. What is it you are protecting? Your monetary value? Your dignity? Your freedom?

You do realise that as women we understand this situation all too well. This is common ground. Why must we draw battle lines on the grounds of gender? Why can’t we dismantle the illusion that it’s the ‘opposite sex’ who is to blame, and instead strive to promote integrity, patience and self-awareness in ALL our interactions, particularly those of a sexual or romantic nature - regardless of gender?